# Round 8 review — GLM scoped pass (sections 1, 2, 6, 18)

Revision 14 excerpts reviewed as provided. Static review only; no runtime verification claimed.

## Checks performed

- **§1 biometric table vs §6 key classes.** The narrow decision key's permitted purposes (one-time UI decisions, request cancellation) exactly cover the four no-biometric rows; its explicit denials (rule changes, command execution, 1Password, credential release, enrollment) match the biometric-required rows, including Deny Forever and temporary/session rules. No mismatch or bypass path in the excerpts.
- **§6 scope enforcement.** Both verifiers derive the key class from retained action semantics rather than message-asserted purpose, and classification never trusts caller labels — the malicious-unprivileged-caller threat in §2 is answered consistently (adapter-asserted UI details, verified IPC identity for caller cancellation).
- **Digest and replay.** Android-side digest recomputation, single-use signatures, consumption-before-side-effect persistence, and first-valid-decision-wins ledger close the replay/stale-dialog vectors named in §2 without adding confirmations or shortening response windows.
- **Crash/unknown handling.** Permit invalidation, no automatic retry, user-initiated Refresh, and unknown-as-terminal are mutually consistent and do not force repeated enrollment or extra biometrics.
- **§18 negotiation.** Authenticated transcript binding, per-request exact contract binding, floor persistence independent of binaries, no relay version trust, and no re-encoding to weaker schemas leave no silent-downgrade path found. The v1/v2 selection rule and its acceptance test are consistent with the binding UX (incompatible phone shows reason + Update; no re-pairing).
- **Cross-references.** §6↔§18 (canonical encoding, evolution), §6↔§17 (restart matrix, update scheduling), and the three round-7 corrections (idle-drain activation, minimum security generations, adapter-deferred relaunch) are reflected consistently in these sections.

No correction identified that would worsen UX.

NO SUBSTANTIVE FINDINGS